GPLv2 does contain a clause to ensure redistributors do not obtain a patent license that cannot be reapplied to every user receiving a copy.

It does not contain the GPLv3 patent license requirements (section 11) that are applied to contributors. Those provisions are attempting to give effect to what you describe, where a contributor must implicitly be granting a patent license to any applicable patents they hold that would cover their contribution.

Notwithstanding that, if a GPLv3-style patent license did exist covering the Linux kernel as a result of contributions, it does not mean that any patent claims over a larger work (eg. Android) would entirely be invalidated; only those relating to the kernel contributions. Many of the patents being argued about are much higher level than that.

I don't think Thom was implying that their patent claims would be running afoul of GPL patent provisions.

Rather, it's that they can't seriously complain about patent infringement by the Linux project when they themselves are a major contributor to that project. Their contributions may not be related to the areas in question, but it's still bad for the credibility of any patent claims they might make...

I don't think Thom was implying that their patent claims would be running afoul of GPL patent provisions.

Rather, it's that they can't seriously complain about patent infringement by the Linux project when they themselves are a major contributor to that project. Their contributions may not be related to the areas in question, but it's still bad for the credibility of any patent claims they might make...

If credibility of patent was an issue, then the US patent system wouldn't be in half the mess it is now.

* You wouldn't have Apple suing over evolutionary patents which have stacks of prior art.
* You wouldn't have HTC buying other companies for their patent portfolio.
* ...and You wouldn't have patent trolls trying to cash in on others successes.

The problem with the patent system -and to a lesser extend, laws in general- is it's not about credibility and hasn't been for some time. It's about clever posturing of legal and technical jargon to manipulate a legal broken system into favoring yourself over your opponents.

Thom also implied that logic should have something to do with the law - and of course it doesn't. Lawyers and the legal system (at least in the US) are all about argument. Argument is all about who can best appeal to the confirmation bias of the Jury and Judge.